Before I begin, let me apologize for posting so little this weekend. I took my son out to the movies yesterday, and spent most of today playing with him, and just found little time to write. Not that playing with him is that unusual. Except for those weekends when his mother takes him, I usually spend my weekends playing with him at least part of each day, but for some reason this weekend I seemed to spend more time than usual, and just could not get around to writing. Hopefully the coming week will allow me more opportunities for writing.

Now, for the subject of my post, or two subjects.

My mother and I had lunch together with my son before the movie, and,a s is usual, despite our widely divergent political views, my mother and I discussed politics and current events. (Actually, for a liberal, she is remarkably intolerant of those who try to tell us what to do for our own good. Of course, it leaves her other views looking even more inconsistent, but I do respect her unwillingness to force people to do the right thing.) One of the topics that came up was the Susan G Komen "run for the cure" held locally, and the Comen foundation's decision to withdraw money from Planned Parenthood, and the subsequent decision to return it. I won't get into the specific conversation, as it is not really relevant, rather I want to discuss two ideas that came to me while having that discussion.

First, I want to talk about the idea of funding, and the fungibility of money. Liberals will often act as if money can be earmarked inside a charity, and thus the group's overall ideology should be of no concern to the donor. In this case, the idea was that, though the donor, or the chairperson of the organization making the grant, opposed Planned Parenthood's stand on abortion, because the money was for mammograms only, the philosophy should not matter. That is a remarkably short sighted, almost absurdly naive position.

The initial problem is that money is fungible, it can be transferred from use to use. And if an outside group is funding mammograms, that frees up money that can then be used elsewhere. In other words, if you fund any activity by an organization, by freeing money that would otherwise be dedicated to that use, you have effectively given funding to any and all of their activities. Thus, it makes no sense to give to a group with which you disagree, even if you only give to one part of the organization^1,2.  I suppose, if you did it as a compromise, accepting the shortcomings of one part of the group because of the greater benefits of another part, it could make sense, but you would still need to be aware, your donation may be earmarked, but it still can effectively support any part of the organization.

The other problem is a little more indirect, but still an issue. Even if the money only went to mammograms, there is nothing that prevents planned parenthood from attempting to proselytize among those getting free mammograms, try to convince those who express uncertainty about pregnancy to get an abortion, or otherwise advance their agenda. By giving them a forum, and also giving them the positive PR that comes from free mammograms, the donations do assist Planned Parenthood in achieving more than the goal of free mammograms, so expressing concern about those donations is perfectly understandable.

Thinking about this made me think about two other issues that came up during my talk with my mother. First, the interesting imbalance in the perception of actions taken by liberals versus those taken by conservatives, at least in the liberal mind. Second, and related, the way liberals choose to describe such choices, and the bizarre double standard they maintain.

The first came up because, while my mother and I were talking, it came up that the amount donated was rather small, as such things go, apparently under a hundred thousand dollars. And so, when discussing this, my mother acted as if it were silly for the donor to be concerned about such a small amount. What struck me was how often people will make such statements, and then never recognize that, if it is silly for the donor to make an issue of the amount, then is it not equally silly for all those protecting the donor's decision to get upset over a trivial amount as well? If the amount is too small to be important, then is that not true in all respects? If the donor should not be concerned about such an amount,t hen shouldn't the recipients be equally unconcerned?

But that is a small double standard compared to the other one that struck me.

When discussing this, many people will argue that this is not a political issue, but an issue of "women's health". As if, by cutting of Planned Parenthood, somehow mammograms would cease to exist. At the very least, they seem to think, as this is a health issue, that the right should have no concern over the ideology of the groups involved. However, the very same groups, when confronted with plans to take tax money to fund abstinence only education, seem to have no problem rising up and expressing their disapproval. In that case, yet another health question does seem to be political, as they disagree with the ideology of those providing the service. Somehow, if the ideology agrees with theirs, then it is just a medical question, but when the ideology does not, then there are more choices available³.

I suppose none of this should surprise me, but I somehow seem to forget from time to time how absolutely blind people can be to their own double standards. Still, it is interesting to look at the strange ways in which such double standards are justified, as these dodges are commonly incorporated into political platforms (especially the "women's health" one), and it is beneficial to learn to expect them, and to be able to quickly debunk the arguments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. This reminds me of those who donated to the political wing of the IRA, but not the militant wing, as if money given to one could never reach the other. Of course, most of those making this claim were not being honest, but those who were were quite deluded if they thought no money going to one made it to the other.

2. As I have mentioned before, I dislike funding any group which sues charitable donations to hire lobbyists to get even more of my money. Because of this fungibility, I will not fund any activity by a group with a lobbying arm, as donations to their actual works will free money which could end up in lobbying.

3. We have become so used to blind obedience to doctors that we often forget medical choices are like all choices, a question of trade offs. Every decision has costs and benefits. (In part, our absurd system of paying for everything using insurance makes us forget this -- see "Why Health Insurance Isn't Insurance and Related Topics" and Redefining Insurance... To Actually BE Insurance".) We need to ask in every case if the answer we choose is worth the cost. And we need to recall there is no single "right" answer in health any more than any other area of human endeavor. ("The Right Way", "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism")